materials and research division · 2009-11-06 · materials and research division experimental...

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MATERIALS AND RESEARCH DIVISION

Experimental Study ND 2003-03

Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix MR0301

Final Report

March 2007

Prepared by

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA

www.dot.nd.gov

DIRECTOR Francis G. Ziegler, P.E.

MATERIALS AND RESEARCH DIVISION Ron Horner, P.E.

This page left blank intentionally

X

RCS HHO-30-19

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT REPORT

EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT NO. CONSTRUCTION PROJ NO LOCATION STATE YEAR NUMBER SURF 1 ND 2003

-03

AC-IM-8-094(041)342 8

Cass County 28

EVALUATION FUNDING NEEP NO. PROPRIETARY FEATURE?

1 X HP&R 3 DEMONSTRATION Yes

EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT

48 2 CONSTRUCTION 4 IMPLEMENTATION 49 51 X No

SHORT TITLE TITLE 52 Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix MR0301

DATE MO. YR. REPORTING THIS FORM

140 03 -- 2007 1 INITIAL 2 ANNUAL 3 X FINAL

KEY WORD 1 145 Joints

KEY WORD 2

167 Load TransferKEY WORD 3 189 Dowels

KEY WORD 4 211 Rehabilitation

KEY WORDS

UNIQUE WORD 233

PROPRIETARY FEATURE NAME 255

Date Work Plan Approved

Date Feature Constructed:

Evaluation Scheduled Until:

Evaluation Extended Until:

Date Evaluation Terminated:

CHRONOLOGY

277 08-2003 281 08-2003 285 08-2008 289 293 04-2006 QUANTITY OF UNITS (ROUNDED TO WHOLE NUMBERS) UNITS UNIT COST (Dollars, Cents)

432

39.60

QUANTITY AND COST

297

1 LIN. FT 2 SY 3 SY-IN 4 CY 305

5 TON 6 LBS 7 X EACH 8 LUMP SUM

306

AVAILABLE EVALUATION

REPORTS

CONSTRUCTION 315 X

PERFORMANCE

X

FINAL

X

CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION

318

1 2 3 4 5

NONE SLIGHT MODERATE SIGNIFICANT SEVERE

319

1 2 3 4 5

EXCELLENT GOOD SATISFACTORY MARGINAL UNSATISFACTORY

APPLICATION 320

1 ADOPTED AS PRIMARY STD. 2 PERMITTED ALTERNATIVE 3 ADOPTED CONDITIONALLY

4 PENDING 5 X REJECTED 6 NOT CONSTRUCTED

(Explain in remarks if 3, 4, 5, or 6 is checked)

REMARKS

321 It is recommended that the NDDOT continue using the proprietary mixes currently allowed in the standard specifications due to higher costs and poor performance of the experimental mix. It is also recommended that special attention is given to the location of coreboards after the dowel bar mix is placed. Coreboard failures can be reduced or eliminated if the coreboard remains in the joint and not allowed to move into the dowel bar slot.

700

Form FHWA 1461

X

Experimental Study ND 2003-03

Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix MR0301

FINAL REPORT

Project AC-IM-8-094(041)342

March 2007

Written by

Bryon Fuchs

Disclaimer

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author or authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not reflect the official views of the North Dakota Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix MR0301 ND 2003-03 Final Report

North Dakota Department of Transportation Materials & Research Division

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 1

Objective ............................................................................................................................ 1

Location ............................................................................................................................. 1

Traffic ................................................................................................................................. 3

Design ................................................................................................................................ 3

Construction ...................................................................................................................... 4

Testing ....................................................................................................................... 4

Post Construction Analysis ........................................................................................ 5

Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 9

Control Section 1 ....................................................................................................... 9

Control Section 2 ..................................................................................................... 11

Experimental Section ............................................................................................... 13

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 15

Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 16

Appendix A: Mix Design ................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Load Transfer ...........................................................................................B-1

Appendix C: Compressive Strength ............................................................................ C-1

Appendix D: Flexural Strength..................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E: Freeze/Thaw ..............................................................................................E-1


North Dakota Department of Transportation Materials & Research Division

II



North Dakota Department of Transportation Materials & Research Division 1

Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix MR0301 ND 2003-03

Purpose and Need

The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) has been constructing

dowel bar retrofit projects since 1995 to restore load transfer across transverse joints in

plain jointed concrete pavements. While this rehabilitation has worked to restore load

transfer, the patch mix material previously used has had caused durability problems.

There are several commercially available patch mixes on the market and the

NDDOT had used a number of them. The mixes were considered expensive and

suffered from durability problems such as; raveling, shrinkage cracks, and spalling. The

mixes set up very quickly. This can lead to little or no mix under the dowel bar which

has led to the patch mix material breaking loose in the slot and losing load transfer.

There was a need for a low cost patch mix material using locally available

materials. North Dakota State University (NDSU), Civil Engineering Department, had

developed a patch mix designed specifically for this purpose.

Objective

The objective of this applied research was to evaluate the patch mix developed

at NDSU.

Location

NDDOT project number AC-IM-8-094(041)342 (westbound lane) near exit 342

was selected to incorporate this applied research. The project was located on Interstate

94 between the West Fargo Interchange and the Red River. Please refer to Figure 1 on

the next page.



AC-IM-8-094(041)342, West Fargo interchange to the Red River (WB-RP 342.4870 to 343.3035 is the location of the research project)

Figure 1 - Project Location.



Traffic

Two-way traffic is provided in the following table from RP 342.803 to 343.800.

Year Passenger Trucks Total 30th Max Hour Two-way Rigid ESALs 2002 10,550 2,050 12,600 1,260 2,870 2004 12,300 1,800 14,100 1,410 2,520 2006 13,325 2,275 16,600 1,560 2,685

Design

The design of the patch mix material was conducted by NDSU. Provided below

is a summary of the information that was presented to the contractor in order to

incorporate this experimental patch mix material onto the project. Refer to Appendix A

for the entire submittal package.

Description This work shall consist of retrofitting approximately one-half lane mile of epoxy-

coated dowel bars into existing concrete pavement using an experimental concrete mix.

Section 570 of the 2002 edition of the NDDOT Standard Specifications for Road and

Bridge Construction shall govern except where noted below.

Material 1. Patching Material. “Concrete Patch Mix ” shall be a mix prepared using the

following mix design:

Material Per CY Quantities

Cement (Type III – Lehigh) 850 lbs

Water 255 lbs

Fine Aggregate (Section 816.01) 1079 lbs

Coarse Aggregate (Section 816.02 – Granite) 1526 lbs

Air-entraining Admixture (Master Builders – Pave Air) 2.975 fl-oz

Accelerating Admixture (Master Builders – Pozzolith NC 534) 340 fl-oz

Water Reducer (Super Plasticizer) (Master Builders – Rheobuild 3000FC) 102 fl-oz



• The Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix shall have the following properties:

Maximum Water to Cement (W/C) Ratio 0.30

Slump 9” ± 1”

Air 6% ± 1%

Construction The primary contractor for project number AC-IM-8-094(041)342 was Wanzek

Construction, Inc located in Fargo, ND. The work related to the dowel bar retrofit was

subcontracted to Highway Services / Penhall Company (Penhall) located in Rogers,

MN.

The project engineer on this project was Joe Peyerl of the Fargo District,

NDDOT. The inspectors on this project were Robin Bellmore and Larry Ostenson from

the Fargo District.

The following personnel from Materials and Research Division were present on

site for the construction of the experimental dowel bar mix; Bryon Fuchs, Mike Marquart,

Steven Henrichs, Kyle Evert, and Tony Gross.

The experimental mix was change ordered onto this project at a cost of $39.60

per dowel bar. The bid price using “Five Star” patch mix was $25.00 per dowel bar.

The bid price was for approximately 1,056 bars.

The construction of the experimental mix occurred on August 14, 2003. The

contractor started placing the experimental mix in the dowel bar slots at 9:15 am. The

weather on this day during construction had an average temperature of 86°F, average

wind speed of 20 mph (gusts – 20 to 30 mph), 48% relative humidity and sunshine.

Testing

Throughout construction of the experimental mix, tests were conducted. The

tests were completed at the start of construction (set A), when approximately 25% (set

B), 50% (set C) and 75% (set D) of the mix was placed.



The following table lists the averages for the four sets of tests conducted:

Test Set A Set B Set C Set D

Air (%) 5.1 5.5 4.3 5.1

Slump (in) 9.00 8.75 8.50 7.50

6-hr Comp Strength (psi) 5,060 5,610 5,390 5,110

7-day Comp Strength (psi) 8,820 9,180 9,990 9,280

28-day Comp Strength (psi) 10,260 10,370 11,370 11,280

28-day Flex Strength (psi) 980 1,100 1,090 1,190

Freeze/Thaw Durability-300 cycles (Factor) 93.1 89.8 98.9 96.9

Post Construction Analysis

The experimental project site was visited on September 24, 2003 and again on

October 8, 2003. Using an FWD, the load transfer across the transverse joints were

tested on October 14, 2003.

Three different sections were evaluated for visual distresses and load transfer.

Each section contains 72 transverse joints or 432 dowel bar slots. The following table

identifies the differences in each section.

Section Location Description

Control Section 1 RP 343.2082 to 343.3035 Five Star Mix used on majority of project

Experimental Section RP 343.1111 to 343.2067 MR0301 Mix

Control Section 2 RP 342.4870 to 343.0546 Five Star Mix using granite aggregate as used in the MR0301 Mix

Visual distresses were noted in each of the sections. The primary distress in

each section was longitudinal shrinkage cracks between the patch mix and existing

concrete. However, the experimental section had more longitudinal shrinkage cracks

than the other two sections evaluated. The depth of the shrinkage cracks was unknown

as cores were not taken.



Provided in the following table is a summary of the sections evaluated.

Control Section 1 Experimental Section Control Section 2

Date of Construction 6-27-03 8-14-03 8-15-03

Average (high) Temp (°F) 58 (68) 86 (90) 86 (91) Average Wind Speed (gusts) (mph) 9 (N/A) 20 (23-30) 11 (N/A)

Humidity 78% 48% 64%

6-hour Comp Breaks (psi) 7,080 5,290 4,850

Load Transfer 97.1% 88.6% 84.6%

Production Rate 143 slots/hr 54 slots/hr 156 slots/hr

Percentage of slots distressed

Percentage of slots distressed 1.4% 32.4% 3.5%

Based on the above table, there were several items that stood out and they are

as follows:

• Environmental conditions

• Load transfer efficiency

• Production rate

• Longitudinal shrinkage cracks

Several of these items may have been caused by the same thing. The one item

that is not tied to the others is the production rate. The production rates in the control

sections were nearly three times the production rate than in the experimental section.

This was attributed to the mixing time requirements. Fifteen minutes of mix time was

substantially longer than the mixing time required for the current proprietary mixes (two

– three minutes.) The use of admixtures required more mixing time in order for them to

work as intended which slows production.

The increase in longitudinal shrinkage cracks in the experimental section may be

the result of either the environmental conditions, the use of a water reducing admixture

or both. The Portland Cement Association (PCA) publishes a book titled Design and

Control of Concrete Mixtures, 14th Edition states that water reducing admixtures may

cause an increase in drying shrinkage. The same publication also states that when

using high-range water reducers (this project used a high-range water reducer), the

drying shrinkage is comparable to concretes without high-range water reducers when



the water to cement ratios remains the same. Another publication, Properties of

Concrete, Fourth Edition written by A. M. Neville states lignosulfonate-based water

reducing admixtures (not used on this project) increase shrinkage, but other water

reducing admixtures do not affect shrinkage. This same publication also states that

super plasticizers (used on this project) do not influence shrinkage. Based on these two

sources, the water reducing admixture used should not have caused an increase in

longitudinal shrinkage in the experimental mix.

Based on the above information, environmental effects appear to have played a

major role in the longitudinal shrinkage cracks. Based on Figure 13-8 in the publication

Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 14th Edition, the rate of evaporation was

calculated for the mixes on the day they were placed. The exact concrete temperature

during placement was unknown in the two control sections and a reasonable

temperature was assumed. Provided in the following table was the rate of evaporation

calculated along with the input data.

Section Air Temperature Humidity Concrete

Temperature Wind Speed Rate of Evaporation

Control #1 58° F 78% *60° F 9 mph 0.035 lb (ft2/hr)

Control #2 86° F 64% *78° F 11 mph 0.04 lb (ft2/hr)

Experimental 86° F 48% 78° F 20 mph 0.18 lb (ft2/hr) *Assumed concrete temperature

As seen in the table above, the rate of evaporation in the experimental section far

exceeded those in the control sections. The wind speed was the major factor in this.

Even though curing compound was applied immediately, the wind will dry the pre-

wetted slot prior to the placement of the grout and the experimental mix. The other

factor that is not seen here is the temperature of the surrounding PCC Pavement.

During summer months, when the air temperature is around 90°F, the PCC pavement

can reach temperatures of 110°F plus. At these temperatures, the heat from the

pavement may also have contributed to the evaporation of water.



Local PCC pavement temperature data (RWIS site at Red River Bridge, I-94) is

not available for the immediate area on August 14 & 15, 2003, however data was

available for June 27, 2003. The PCC pavement temperature stated on the previous

page is from another site with very similar environmental conditions (sun, wind, etc) on

these days (RWIS site west of Jamestown, ND, I-94).

Using RWIS data, the difference in pavement temperature ranged from

approximately 20°F to 42°F lower in June compared to August. This temperature

difference was important as it may indicate that the Experimental mix and Control

Section #2 mix set up quicker than Control Section #1 mix, which may result in a slightly

poorer bond to the existing concrete. The difference in the average ambient air

temperature was 28°F lower in June compared to August.



Evaluations

Materials and Research conducted the first evaluation of the dowel bar slots on

September 28, 2004. The final evaluation was conducted on October 26, 2005. Control

section 1, control section 2, and the experimental section were evaluated visually for

distresses. Load transfers across the joints were performed on these sections with a

FWD.

Control Section 1

Photo 1 shows an overall view of control section 1.

Overall, control section 1 looks good. The number of visible distresses identified

has nearly doubled but the load transfer efficiency has remained the same. Control

section #1 is outperforming the other sections with lower visible distresses and higher

load transfer efficiency.

Provided in the following table is the percent of slots (there is a total of 432 slots)

with distresses in control section 1 and average load transfer efficiency within this

section. The percentage of transverse cracks is slightly lower than one year ago but the

amount of coreboard failures are up. The location of some transverse cracks suggests

that they may be the initial stages of coreboard failures. Coreboard failures are a result

of misalignment of the coreboard within the slot (coreboard does not remain in the joint).

Photo 1 - Overall view of control section 1.



Control Section 1 Distress / Load Transfer Date

Visible Long. Cracks Transverse Crack Coreboard Failure Load Transfer October 2003 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 97.1%

September 2004 9.3% 2.1% 0.5% 93.9%

October 2005 16.9% 1.9% 1.9% 93.6%

Photo 2 - Typical joint in control section 1.

Photo 3 - Spalling at joint and dowel bar slot.



Control Section 2

Photo 5 shows an overall view of control section 2.

Overall, control section 2 looks OK. There has been a substantial increase in the

number of visible distresses identified in the period of a year and load transfer efficiency

has dropped. As the number and severity of the distresses increase, it is anticipated

that the load transfer will continue to drop in this section.


with distresses in control section 2 and average load transfer efficiency within this

Photo 4 - Coreboard failure in control section 1.

Photo 5 - Overall view of control section 2.



section. The location of some transverse cracks suggests that they may be the initial

stages of coreboard failures. Coreboard failures are a result of misalignment of the

coreboard within the slot (coreboard does not remain in the joint).

Control Section 2

Distress / Load Transfer Date Visible Long. Cracks Transverse Crack Coreboard Failure Load Transfer

October 2003 3.5% 0.2% 0.2% 84.6%

September 2004 18.3% 2.1% 0.2% 84.1%

October 2005 51.6% 33.3% 6.3% 80.5%

Photo 6 - Typical joint in control section 2 - spall area is in the original PCC pavement.



Experimental Section

Photo 7 shows an overall view of the experimental section.

Overall, the experimental section is experiencing the most visible distresses of

the three sections evaluated. There has been an increase in the number of visible

distresses identified with a decrease in load transfer efficiency. As the number and

severity of the distresses increase, it is anticipated that the load transfer will continue to

drop in this section.


with distresses in the experimental section and average load transfer efficiency within

this section. The location of some transverse cracks suggests that they may be the

initial stages of coreboard failures. Coreboard failures are a result of misalignment of

the coreboard within the slot (coreboard does not remain in the joint).

Experimental Section Distress / Load Transfer Date

Visible Long. Cracks Transverse Crack Coreboard Failure Load Transfer October 2003 32.4% 0.0% 0.7% 88.6%

September 2004 50.9% 1.2% 3.0% 83.1%

October 2005 79.6% 5.3% 4.6% 78.5%

Photo 7 - Overall view of the experimental section.



Photo 8 - Typical joint in experimental section.

Photo 9 - Transverse crack location is likely the early signs of a coreboard failure.

Transverse crack



Summary

The production rates achieved during construction with the experimental mix will

not allow the experimental mix to be competitive on a construction cost basis with other

proprietary mixes currently used.

The long-term performance and continued load transfer of dowel bar retrofits

relies on the performance of the concrete patch mix and dowel bar itself. Over the

evaluation period, all sections experienced an increase in visible distresses. However,

the experimental mix has also shown more distresses than control section 1 or control

section 2. The load transfer efficiency is significantly lower in the experimental section

and control section 2 compared with control section 1. Provided in the following table is

a summary of the distress (in terms of percentage of slots) and load transfer efficiency

observed or measured to date.

Control Section 1 Experimental Section Control Section 2 Distress Oct-03 Sep-04 Oct-05 Oct-03 Sep-04 Oct-05 Oct-03 Sep-04 Oct-05

Visible crack-long. 1.4% 9.3% 16.9% 32.4% 50.9% 79.6% 3.5% 18.3% 51.6%

Transverse crack 0.0% 2.1% 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% 5.3% 0.2% 2.1% 33.3%

Coreboard 0.0% 0.5% 1.9% 0.7% 3.0% 4.6% 0.2% 0.2% 6.3%

Load Transfer 97.1% 93.9% 93.6% 88.6% 83.1% 78.5% 84.6% 84.1% 80.5%

Where as the load transfer and distress in control section 1 is relatively stable,

distress continues to increase and load transfer continues to decrease in the

experimental section and control section 2.

It is believed that the environmental conditions at the time of construction are, in

part, responsible for the distress noted initially and in subsequent evaluations. The

ambient air temperature, wind speed, and temperature of the surrounding concrete

have a dramatic affect on the rate of evaporation and rate of hydration of the concrete

patch mix.



The decline in load transfer efficiency in the experimental section and in control

section 2 appears to be related to the increased distress in the concrete patch mix for

these sections. Distress in control section 1 although increasing, is relatively low and

stable, and the load transfer efficiency for this section remains in the 90% plus range.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the NDDOT continue using the proprietary mixes

currently allowed in the standard specifications due to higher costs and poor

performance of the experimental mix.

It is recommended that special attention is given to the location of coreboards

after the dowel bar mix is placed. Coreboard failures can be reduced or eliminated if

the coreboard remains in the joint and not allowed to move into the dowel bar slot when

placing the concrete patch mix.

It is also recommended that tighter controls be placed on the allowable

environmental conditions at the time that concrete patch mix is being placed. The

effects of temperature, humidity, and wind speed can dramatically affect the rate of cure

and final condition of the concrete patch mix. These factors have been shown to

contribute to the formation of shrinkage cracks; as well as the development of bonding

problems with the side walls of the existing concrete. Ambient air temperatures must

be, at a minimum, within the manufacturer’s recommendations at the time of placing the

concrete patch mix. These concerns should be addressed in the Special Provisions for

future Dowel Bar Retrofit projects.

A-1

Appendix A: Mix Design

A-2

North Dakota Department of Transportation Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix “MR0301”

Description

This work shall consist of retrofitting approximately one-half lane mile of epoxy-coated dowel bars into existing concrete pavement using an experimental concrete mix. Section 570 of the 2002 edition of the NDDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction shall govern except where noted below. Material 1. Patching Material. “Concrete Patch Mix ” shall be a mix prepared using the

following mix design:

Material Per CY Quantities Cement 850 lbs Water 255 lbs Fine Aggregate 1079 lbs Coarse Aggregate 1526 lbs Air-entraining Admixture 2.975 fl-oz Accelerating Admixture 340 fl-oz Water Reducer (Super Plasticizer) 102 fl-oz

• The cement shall be a Type III (Lehigh) meeting the requirements of Section

804.01.

• The fine aggregate shall meet the requirements of Section 816.01 and have the following gradation:

Sieve Size % Passing 3/8” 100 #4 95-100 #8 45-65

#50 10-30 #100 0-10

#200 (Max) 3 • The coarse aggregate shall be granite obtained from Ortonville, MN. The

owner of the pit is Aggregate Industries. The coarse aggregate shall meet the requirements of Section 816.02 and have the following gradation:

Sieve Size % Passing 3/8” 100 #4 25-30 #8 10-20

#200 (Max) 1

A-3

• The concrete admixtures shall be the following:

Air-entraining Master Builders – Pave-Air Accelerator Master Builders – Pozzolith NC534 Water Reducer (Super plasticizer) Master Builders – Rheobuild 3000FC

• The Dowel Bar Retrofit Mix shall have the following properties:

Maximum Water to Cement (W/C) Ratio 0.30 Slump 9” ± 1” Air 6% ± 1%

Construction Requirements 1. A trial batch shall be conducted prior to placement in the slots in order to test the

material properties. Minor adjustments may be required in order to meet the mix requirements as stated in Section 570 of the specifications and the changes indicated above.

2. A grout mix shall be applied to the dowel bar slot after pre-wetting the dowel bar slot and prior to placement of the MR0301 patch mix in the slot. The patch mix shall be placed in the slot prior to the grout mix drying. Drying of the grout mix will be considered when the grout mix starts to turn white. If the grout mix starts to dry, the grout shall be removed and cleaned according to Section 570.04 C.2.c.

3. The recommended mixing procedure is as follows: a. Place the coarse aggregate into the mixer. b. Combine the super plasticizer and water. c. Add half the quantity of water with super plasticizer to the coarse

aggregate and mix for two minutes before adding other components. d. Add the fine aggregate (the air entraining admixture shall be added to the

fine aggregate as it is being added to the mix). e. Add the cement. f. Add the remaining quantity of water with super plasticizer. g. Add the accelerating admixture. h. After the last component is added, mixing shall continue for additional five

minutes and then stop the mixer for three minutes and then resume mixing for an additional two minutes.

4. The curing compound shall be applied immediately after the patch mix is finished. Method of measurement and basis of Payment

Installation of the Dowel Bars will be measured and paid for as “Dowel Bar Retrofit Type A” for each dowel installed and accepted by the Engineer. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment, and materials necessary to complete the work as specified.

A-4


B-1

Appendix B: Load Transfer

B-2

Control Section #1

Station (mile.feet)

2003 Load Transfer

2004 Load Transfer

2005 Load Transfer

343.2082 91.4% 91.2% 91.9% 343.2094 99.6% 96.5% 95.9% 343.2107 100.3% 99.7% 95.8% 343.2123 98.6% 93.8% 92.7% 343.2136 95.6% 97.3% 96.2% 343.2148 93.5% 94.6% 94.8% 343.2162 99.4% 98.1% 93.2% 343.2176 92.8% 94.6% 90.9% 343.2190 97.2% 98.5% 97.2% 343.2201 94.9% 94.6% 92.6% 343.2214 96.1% 97.0% 95.8% 343.2229 99.8% 96.0% 95.8% 343.2243 95.3% 98.1% 93.8% 343.2254 96.3% 95.6% 95.0% 343.2268 95.6% 95.2% 92.9% 343.2282 98.4% 95.6% 92.5% 343.2297 96.7% 93.2% 87.8% 343.2308 95.7% 93.8% 88.7% 343.2321 93.6% 90.9% 88.1% 343.2337 95.4% 93.9% 85.8% 343.2350 96.3% 95.1% 93.9% 343.2362 94.6% 92.5% 90.6% 343.2375 96.8% 91.2% 90.2% 343.2390 98.9% 96.0% 95.5% 343.2403 99.1% 91.7% 91.5% 343.2415 96.2% 93.1% 95.3% 343.2426 95.4% 92.7% 94.2% 343.2442 99.8% 96.2% 94.9% 343.2456 98.7% 98.2% 95.5% 343.2467 100.9% 97.0% 94.4% 343.2481 97.5% 96.9% 94.5% 343.2494 98.7% 97.1% 92.6% 343.2508 99.7% 97.1% 96.8% 343.2521 99.1% 98.0% 98.0% 343.2533 98.7% 95.7% 95.6% 343.2547 96.7% 93.8% 95.7% 343.2561 97.9% 95.6% 96.7% 343.2573 96.4% 91.9% 94.8% 343.2587 95.8% 94.1% 93.0% 343.2601 96.6% 93.1% 92.4% 343.2615 100.2% 93.6% 94.3% 343.2628 102.1% 94.3% 96.8%

Station (mile.feet)

2003 Load Transfer

2004 Load Transfer

2005 Load Transfer

343.2641 100.6% 96.0% 96.4% 343.2655 99.8% 93.4% 96.5% 343.2670 98.2% 95.9% 93.4% 343.2681 97.3% 94.9% 94.5% 343.2695 94.1% 92.8% 98.5% 343.2710 100.2% 92.3% 94.9% 343.2723 97.7% 93.2% 97.7% 343.2736 97.5% 89.4% 88.4% 343.2750 98.6% 94.5% 97.3% 343.2765 95.3% 94.5% 91.6% 343.2779 97.4% 93.0% 93.3% 343.2791 94.2% 87.9% 86.5% 343.2804 92.6% 95.0% 95.1% 343.2819 95.5% 89.3% 88.4% 343.2833 97.9% 92.8% 92.7% 343.2845 99.4% 92.2% 95.8% 343.2858 98.3% 92.0% 94.2% 343.2873 99.5% 93.1% 95.2% 343.2887 98.6% 90.6% 95.4% 343.2898 96.6% 93.2% 92.7% 343.2910 97.4% 93.8% 91.6% 343.2926 94.7% 92.7% 88.0% 343.2939 96.1% 95.0% 91.2% 343.2952 99.3% 90.7% 90.3% 343.2964 99.0% 95.0% 95.0% 343.2979 96.1% 89.5% 94.7% 343.2995 97.4% 86.8% 92.2% 343.3005 95.1% 85.9% 93.0% 343.3019 93.1% 88.9% 94.0% 343.3035 94.1% 96.6% 98.8%

B-3

Load TransferControl Section #1

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%34

3.20

82

343.

2094

343.

2108

343.

2123

343.

2135

343.

2147

343.

2162

343.

2176

343.

2190

343.

2200

343.

2214

343.

2229

343.

2242

343.

2255

343.

2268

343.

2282

343.

2296

343.

2309

343.

2321

343.

2336

343.

2350

343.

2362

343.

2375

343.

2390

Station (RP+Feet)

Perc

enta

ge

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

343.

2403

343.

2415

343.

2426

343.

2442

343.

2456

343.

2467

343.

2481

343.

2494

343.

2508

343.

2518

343.

2531

343.

2546

343.

2561

343.

2573

343.

2587

343.

2600

343.

2615

343.

2627

343.

2641

343.

2655

343.

2669

343.

2682

343.

2694

343.

2710

Station (RP+Feet)

Per

cent

age

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05

B-4


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%34

3.27

23

343.

2737

343.

2751

343.

2765

343.

2778

343.

2790

343.

2804

343.

2819

343.

2833

343.

2843

343.

2857

343.

2872

343.

2886

343.

2898

343.

2910

343.

2925

343.

2938

343.

2951

343.

2963

343.

2979

343.

2993

343.

3005

343.

3019

343.

3035

Station (RP+Feet)

Per

cent

age

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05

B-5

Control Section #2

Station (mile.feet)

2003 Load Transfer

2004 Load Transfer

2005 Load Transfer

342.4857 87.0% 86.0% 83.4% 342.4870 76.1% 83.6% 75.6% 342.4883 81.3% 88.3% 85.1% 342.4898 82.4% 83.6% 77.2% 342.4913 65.5% 83.6% 69.6% 342.4924 80.9% 82.6% 73.4% 342.4935 85.2% 88.8% 84.0% 342.4951 79.8% 71.2% 70.1% 342.4964 79.5% 73.6% 71.4% 342.4982 71.8% 64.6% 66.7% 342.4993 84.1% 78.8% 81.6% 342.5007 65.3% 65.2% 60.0% 342.5021 83.7% 79.0% 79.9% 342.5035 72.9% 74.5% 67.9% 342.5048 82.4% 76.8% 73.1% 342.5061 86.6% 79.8% 78.5% 342.5075 82.6% 87.6% 81.9% 342.5090 86.1% 81.5% 77.7% 342.5102 90.5% 89.1% 88.8% 342.5115 89.3% 85.8% 79.0% 342.5131 91.1% 87.7% 84.0% 342.5144 88.9% 89.2% 84.2% 342.5157 86.3% 88.2% 84.7% 342.5169 90.4% 88.2% 82.9% 342.5183 89.2% 87.9% 84.3% 342.5199 84.9% 83.4% 80.3% 342.5211 88.7% 85.4% 85.4% 342.5225 86.1% 82.3% 79.8% 342.5240 91.2% 88.9% 90.7% 342.5253 89.2% 91.8% 88.4% 342.5267 96.3% 91.5% 89.2% 343.0000 76.0% 79.4% 75.9% 343.0015 81.9% 81.7% 70.9% 343.0029 90.4% 87.7% 81.0% 343.0041 75.8% 81.8% 78.4% 343.0055 86.2% 86.0% 80.8% 343.0069 60.5% 62.8% 57.7% 343.0082 87.3% 87.1% 81.4% 343.0095 89.8% 90.5% 84.4% 343.0108 83.7% 82.8% 80.2% 343.0122 86.6% 84.0% 82.6% 343.0137 90.3% 91.3% 89.8%

Station (mile.feet)

2003 Load Transfer

2004 Load Transfer

2005 Load Transfer

343.0149 92.1% 87.4% 80.9% 343.0162 89.3% 88.2% 87.1% 343.0177 91.4% 90.3% 85.4% 343.0190 88.2% 89.5% 85.4% 343.0203 89.7% 86.2% 83.0% 343.0216 80.8% 80.5% 74.7% 343.0230 86.0% 87.8% 87.6% 343.0246 94.1% 91.9% 89.7% 343.0258 90.5% 83.8% 85.5% 343.0272 92.1% 89.2% 90.3% 343.0287 72.0% 77.6% 71.8% 343.0301 88.2% 86.4% 84.4% 343.0314 82.7% 78.1% 74.3% 343.0327 83.2% 79.3% 73.2% 343.0342 89.8% 85.0% 82.6% 343.0357 95.6% 93.7% 90.9% 343.0370 86.5% 85.5% 79.1% 343.0383 87.6% 88.8% 84.4% 343.0398 76.9% 78.5% 72.5% 343.0411 88.1% 84.8% 80.9% 343.0424 84.2% 87.7% 80.5% 343.0437 85.0% 82.6% 79.7% 343.0453 88.3% 87.4% 85.3% 343.0467 89.2% 89.4% 87.0% 343.0478 83.7% 81.6% 77.9% 343.0493 73.2% 78.9% 77.2% 343.0507 90.3% 89.7% 85.1% 343.0520 83.0% 86.9% 84.5% 343.0534 85.2% 83.5% 82.0% 343.0546 76.9% 89.3% 90.7%

B-6


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%34

2.48

57

342.

4870

342.

4883

342.

4898

342.

4913

342.

4924

342.

4935

342.

4951

342.

4964

342.

4982

342.

4992

342.

5007

342.

5020

342.

5035

342.

5047

342.

5061

342.

5075

342.

5090

342.

5102

342.

5115

342.

5131

342.

5144

342.

5156

342.

5168

Station (RP+Feet)

Per

cent

age

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

342.

5183

342.

5199

342.

5212

342.

5225

342.

5240

342.

5254

342.

5267

343.

0000

343.

0015

343.

0029

343.

0041

343.

0053

343.

0068

343.

0082

343.

0094

343.

0107

343.

0122

343.

0137

343.

0148

343.

0160

343.

0176

343.

0190

343.

0202

343.

0215

Station (RP+Feet)

Perc

enta

ge

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05

B-7


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%34

3.02

30

343.

0246

343.

0258

343.

0272

343.

0288

343.

0301

343.

0313

343.

0327

343.

0344

343.

0358

343.

0370

343.

0383

343.

0398

343.

0412

343.

0424

343.

0438

343.

0452

343.

0466

343.

0478

343.

0493

343.

0508

343.

0521

343.

0534

343.

0546

Station (RP+Feet)

Perc

enta

ge

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05

B-8

Experimental Section

Station (mile.feet)

2003 Load Transfer

2004 Load Transfer

2005 Load Transfer

343.1111 91.1% 85.1% 85.6% 343.1123 94.1% 91.8% 91.3% 343.1136 88.5% 86.1% 88.2% 343.1152 85.5% 84.3% 86.0% 343.1165 91.8% 85.6% 80.5% 343.1178 91.8% 88.9% 89.4% 343.1191 89.6% 84.9% 72.8% 343.1205 75.2% 74.0% 72.5% 343.1220 83.4% 78.5% 69.8% 343.1232 93.3% 90.4% 91.2% 343.1245 89.6% 89.1% 84.9% 343.1260 92.3% 93.6% 94.1% 343.1273 90.6% 85.7% 67.5% 343.1287 87.8% 83.0% 80.3% 343.1300 89.6% 86.8% 86.0% 343.1314 91.5% 94.3% 95.7% 343.1330 92.5% 85.4% 81.5% 343.1343 89.6% 84.5% 75.7% 343.1357 89.4% 77.1% 67.6% 343.1371 88.8% 89.2% 85.2% 343.1384 92.1% 81.0% 69.4% 343.1396 92.5% 83.9% 70.0% 343.1408 90.3% 86.5% 86.0% 343.1422 90.6% 89.5% 87.3% 343.1437 80.0% 75.3% 74.0% 343.1449 88.9% 88.0% 89.1% 343.1462 88.5% 84.6% 77.9% 343.1477 88.5% 86.9% 86.7% 343.1491 87.9% 79.6% 75.1% 343.1504 87.4% 84.9% 79.4% 343.1517 90.1% 90.9% 86.8% 343.1531 90.8% 88.6% 83.1% 343.1546 91.3% 90.6% 81.0% 343.1557 87.6% 86.5% 87.8% 343.1570 92.9% 84.8% 82.5% 343.1585 86.6% 86.6% 89.6% 343.1599 87.7% 83.6% 77.7% 343.1613 86.8% 85.7% 88.4% 343.1625 84.3% 80.0% 80.4% 343.1640 88.7% 80.2% 70.3% 343.1654 80.3% 74.6% 67.5% 343.1666 82.1% 78.7% 70.5%

Station (mile.feet)

2003 Load Transfer

2004 Load Transfer

2005 Load Transfer

343.1679 84.1% 83.2% 84.5% 343.1694 92.9% 84.5% 73.8% 343.1707 85.2% 80.1% 75.3% 343.1720 88.1% 73.4% 69.9% 343.1733 93.0% 81.3% 78.8% 343.1747 88.1% 84.3% 78.8% 343.1762 93.0% 86.0% 74.6% 343.1774 93.0% 85.9% 81.3% 343.1785 89.6% 79.2% 75.4% 343.1801 89.8% 82.6% 77.0% 343.1815 84.5% 74.8% 63.9% 343.1828 80.5% 65.7% 56.7% 343.1839 87.1% 75.7% 75.2% 343.1854 90.9% 83.8% 71.0% 343.1869 87.3% 75.1% 67.6% 343.1881 89.3% 81.3% 78.0% 343.1893 87.4% 77.9% 68.3% 343.1908 89.6% 92.7% 91.2% 343.1922 86.0% 81.8% 78.9% 343.1934 91.7% 84.8% 79.0% 343.1948 88.2% 81.3% 81.8% 343.1963 91.4% 82.0% 80.0% 343.1978 86.0% 74.4% 66.1% 343.1987 94.7% 92.7% 83.4% 343.1999 89.9% 88.5% 83.9% 343.2014 94.2% 86.1% 81.1% 343.2028 91.4% 78.4% 73.5% 343.2040 90.4% 78.1% 69.6% 343.2053 87.8% 76.9% 66.9% 343.2067 73.4% 63.9% 60.7%

B-9

Load TransferExperimental Section

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%34

3.11

11

343.

1123

343.

1137

343.

1152

343.

1166

343.

1178

343.

1191

343.

1206

343.

1219

343.

1233

343.

1245

343.

1261

343.

1274

343.

1287

343.

1300

343.

1314

343.

1331

343.

1344

343.

1357

343.

1371

343.

1383

343.

1395

343.

1408

343.

1422

Station (RP+Feet)

Perc

enta

ge

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

343.

1437

343.

1449

343.

1462

343.

1477

343.

1491

343.

1504

343.

1515

343.

1531

343.

1546

343.

1556

343.

1570

343.

1585

343.

1599

343.

1613

343.

1625

343.

1639

343.

1653

343.

1667

343.

1680

343.

1693

343.

1707

343.

1721

343.

1733

343.

1746

Station (RP+Feet)

Per

cent

age

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05

B-10


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%34

3.17

60

343.

1774

343.

1786

343.

1801

343.

1815

343.

1828

343.

1840

343.

1854

343.

1869

343.

1881

343.

1892

343.

1906

343.

1921

343.

1933

343.

1947

343.

1962

343.

1978

343.

1986

343.

1999

343.

2013

343.

2027

343.

2040

343.

2052

343.

2067

Station (RP+Feet)

Perc

enta

ge

14-Oct-03 28-Sep-04 26-Oct-05

C-1

Appendix C: Compressive Strength

C-2

6-Hour Compressive Break – Five Star

C-3

6-Hour Compressive Break – Five Star with Granite Aggregate

C-4

6-Hour Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set A

C-5

6-Hour Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set B

C-6

6-Hour Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set C

C-7

6-Hour Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set D

C-8

7-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set A

C-9

7-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set B

C-10

7-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set C

C-11

7-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set D

C-12

28-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set A

C-13

28-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set B

C-14

28-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set C

C-15

28-Day Compressive Break – Mix MR0301-Set D

C-16


D-1

Appendix D: Flexural Strength

D-2

28-Day Flexural Strength Set A = 982 psi Set B = 1,099 psi Set C = 1,093 psi Set D = 1,188 psi

E-1

Appendix E: Freeze/Thaw

materials and research division · 2009-11-06 · materials and research division experimental...

Documents